About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
about his new book. he also discussed china and the history of the u.s. constitution. this is just over an hour. >> ok. concepts. for 20 years i have been advising -- roughly half of that on financial economic matters. the other half a variety of topics. about 10 years ago, um we started -- about 10 years ago, we started talking about role of law. i said to him at the time, what strikes me about this topic was that other than the occasion i can think of, other than when paul worked at the state department and bill clinton was president, this topic in my view has never gotten the attention it deserves. it has been treated too much as a technical topic. not as a fundamental topic about the relations of the state's. in my experience, i always say the chinese leadership, the most distinctive characteristic is they are systematically opened. that is to say the modus operandi is on a particular topic, let's look for the best ideas throughout the world, bring them back, study them, and then customize them as appropriate for our own system. and yet in this one respect, they have been a little b
vacuum cleaner. sucking into the united states the net exports of europe, japan, and lately china. thus providing exporters -- germany, japan, or china -- with the requisite demand necessary. to keep the factories going. so, the ever expanding trade deficit was not an accident. it was a very clever way of replacing one that surplus recycling system with another. the first one, it was one where america had a surplus and america decided instead of doing what germany is doing at the moment -- which is cutting its nose to spite its face, and thereby entering into recession by cutting, cutting, cutting -- volcker and kissinger initially, and then volcker as the head of the fed had a different idea. we are going to expand our dominance and our wealth by expanding our deficit and using our deficits to provide the rest of the world with the demand which is necessary to grow their economies, even at the expense of ours. and who is going to pay for the deficit? if i have an ever-expanding deficit, the bank tells me it is game over. but if you are the united states of america and you have the rese
. but competitors in china are, rush show were trading on a daily basis. -- my competitors in china and russia work training. this is a position of irritation of a triple jump. i was like a robot in the sense that everything i was doing, the hours i was putting in it, the morning, the afternoon, the evening, i trained all they basically. my first session, 10:00, i was basically of the rank by nine and my last session would be at 6:00-6:30. then i would go to the gym. i look back, no wonder i was in really good shape. >> where did that drive? how did that drive? where do you get that drive? >> we were talking earlier about the role of parents. when you had mentioned the tiger mom or the tiger parents, we did not have tiger parents. they were there to support me and be there in times when i needed a push culminated motivation. it is just one of those things when you have a passion and a vision. you do not see anything else. that is what drives you every day. >> you just got engaged. are you going to be a tiger mom. [laughter] >> looking at the way i was raised with a set of rules and just the way my
a tiny fraction of this to deal with china or russia t our nuclear arsenal isn't stopping iran from trying to achieve its nuclear weapon. these are sad, missed opportunities to right size the military which will still be the most powerful in the world by far. for us to deal with veterans' needs. mr. mcgovern: additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: for us to deal with the threats that we face today, to deal with the damage that we have done in the misguided war in iraq. to be able to deal meaningfully with the guard and ready reserve that should be upgraded and healed from the damage that was inflicted upon him. we can provide far more real security, save tax dollars, deal with the needs of veterans that are about to be, sadly, undercut , and provide balance to our budget. because, in fact, the fiscal instability for reckless -- from reckless bills like that is in fact a national security threat. we are no longer going to be able to pay almost half the world's entire military budget. we should start by rejecting this authorization
would not say -- i was not referring to just the soviet union and nazi germany. communist china killed far more of those two tyrannies combined, with no christian heritage to speak of. there are serious scholars that makes serious arguments that there is something and luther's temperament that was germanic. he was no democrat. the more, the merrier. religious factions or alternative sources of social authority. what you want is a society in which the state does not monopolized social authority. >> you talked extensively about religion in the united states contributing to [inaudible] there is one particular force that think they can inflict their views on this country. they insist said it was the intention of the founding fathers to create a christian equivalent of iran, which i do not think is the case. just because you are religious, it does not make you write all the time. >> get in line with everybody else. with respect, i disagree with what you just said. the religious right, which i obviously am not a member, rose after the religious left in the form of the reverend martin luther
is the head line at "the washington post" fed page. josh hicks reports -- guest: i just got back from china, and we talked about the electoral college there, and a state that have a problem with freedom, you know, and democracy. they can't figure it out. i tried to explain to them and they still wonder why do we still have this if we were this representative democracy and the people have their way. very interesting. host: how did you answer the question? guest: i tried to explain the foundation. the fact we have federalism and states have power and in this particular case it is the power to select a president. they did not want congress to do it. but they still cannot buy it, i don't think. host: on twitter -- asking to explain the historical justification and why do we need it now. guest: the justification for it at the founding was they did not want congress to make the selection of the president. they wanted to take away from the capital where maybe chicanery would occur and people would do deals. they wanted it to respect federalism, a federal election rather than a national legend. it
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)